By James P. Tucker Jr.
The Trilateral Commission (TC) refused to tell AMERICAN FREE PRESS where it would meet next spring. Still, we figured it out. The globalist group will meet in Washington, D.C. April 8-10, 2011 to panhandle American taxpayers in a determined, but failing, attempt to establish a world government.
Already the TC is struggling to reignite its global government efforts but is unable to overcome resistance from American patriots. The Senate is balking at ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) because of unconstitutional excesses. Action has been delayed until a lame-duck session following the November elections. But the TC, and its brother group, Bilderberg, is using the time to pressure the Senate to embrace START after the elections are safely over.
START and other sovereignty-surrendering treaties, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement, are important steps in the TC-Bilderberg campaign to establish a world government. An “American Union” similar to the European Union is to be established with the proposed “amero” becoming the “euro” in this hemisphere.
The immediate danger is that the Senate will bow to immense pressure to ratify START at the post-election lame-duck session. A significant number of incumbents are likely to lose and have no political stake in the issue. Others will be told their votes will be forgotten before the next election so they had better take big bucks now rather than offend the power brokers.
Secretaries of state, defense and treasury always attend TC and Bilderberg meetings, as do White House officials and congressional lapdogs. All are pressuring the Senate to ratify START. The treaty creates a Bilateral Consultative Commission with power to approve “additional measures as may be necessary to improve the viability and effectiveness of the treaty.”
The U.S. and Russian executive branches could implement the commission’s recommendations without Senate ratification. This is unconstitutional on its face. When the White House gets through implementing commission recommendations you may be unable to recognize the START treaty.
Even the courts, not often recognized as bastions of constitutional principle, are saying such treaties are unconstitutional.
In 2006, the federal appellate court for the District of Columbia declined to implement “adjustments” by an international organization to an environmental treaty. The court cited “significant debate over the constitutionality of assigning lawmaking functions to international bodies.”
The court ruled that treating the treaty adjustments as law “would raise serious constitutional questions in light of the non-delegation doctrine, numerous constitutional procedural requirements for making law, and the separation of powers.”
Source : American Free Press : http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/trilaterals_233.html